October 9, 2015

Harper the Genteel Bigot

Reuel S. Amdur

In a recent response to a reporter's question, Stephen Harper referred insidiously to "old-stock Canadians." Whether or not he was being openly racist, the message to the subconscious was just that. It's us versus them. More about this in a bit, but first let's look at the context in which his remark was made.

When Harper was asked about
removing health care coverage from some new arrivals, he replied, “The only
time we’ve removed it is where we have clearly bogus refugee claimants who have
been refused and turned down. We do not
offer them a better care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive.”

Then he went on, “I think
that’s something that most new and existing and old-stock Canadians agree with.” To begin, without going into a deeper
analysis, it is quite simply a lie. A
court found the denial of health care to be “cruel and unusual,” and the denial
affects not just those who have had a claim lost but others as well, for
example clients from so-called safe countries, countries like Hungary and
Mexico.

Someone fleeing criminal
cartels in Mexico is apparently a bogus refugee, as is a Roma fleeing attacks
by racist thugs in Hungary.

So let’s dig a bit deeper.

He talks about “clearly bogus
refugee claimants who have been refused and turned down.” Our system apparently makes no mistakes. But Samsu Mia, a failed claimant, was finally
able to stay in Canada and bring his family, after the immigration judge found
that his emotional, physical, and financial abuse that he suffered at the hands
of a Bangladeshi diplomat was just a worker-employer conflict. “Clearly bogus?”

Then there is the lie that
our refugee health care program offers benefits beyond what “the ordinary
Canadian can receive.” The benefits are
comparable to what a Canadian in receipt of social assistance is entitled.

The niqab controversy is part
of the same picture. Us versus
them. My symbols trump your
symbols. Zumera Ishaq cherishes her
niqab, which has a fundamental religious importance for her. Some have argued that Islam does not require
the wearing of the niqab, but that argument is irrelevant. Her Islam does. She sees no conflict between the symbolism of
the niqab and that of the citizenship ceremony.
Harper does. So what? I’ll tell you what.

No matter that Harper’s legal
effort to keep Ishaq from being granted at a citizenship ceremony was so absurd
that the judges hearing the case did not even need to take the time to reflect
on the question. They unanimously turned
it down right then and there from the bench.

But now Harper has just what
he wants and will continue dragging the matter out by appealing to the Supreme
Court. It is not to the Supreme Court
that he wants to appeal. Rather, he
wants something that appeals at some level—openly or subconsciously—to the
“old-stock Canadians.” He is milking
this decision for all it is worth, to keep the us versus them alive. It appears that it has become an important
factor in his drive to win.

One of Crosby’s
messages that helped the British Tories was “It is not racist to impose limits
on immigration.”

Harper tells us that we need
to be careful because terrorists might sneak in with genuine refugees. Angela Merkel, the conservative German prime
minister, is admitting 800,000 refugees.
She is holding the door open. She
is defying the racists. No dog whistle
there. What would be happening in Europe
if Harper were the German prime minister?

Perhaps Justin Trudeau has
said it best. “Mr. Harper is yet again
highlighting that he doesn’t believe that a Canadian is a Canadian is a
Canadian, and that there are different categories of Canadian. The fact that he is once again choosing to
divide Canadians and to use fear in his politics simply isn’t worthy of a prime
minister of Canada.” Trudeau’s syntax is
a bit off, but his sentiment is dead on.